147,000 IPR Cases in the First-instance Concluded in 2016

Latest statistics from the Supreme People's Court (SPC) showed that courts nationwide concluded 147,000 IPR cases in the first instance in 2016.

According to SPC, Nanjing, Suzhou, Wuhan and Chengdu have set up their own IPR adjudication divisions, which could handle cross-region IPR cases. As efforts to facilitate the innovation-driven innovation strategy and improve law system for IPR protection, SPC formulated new judicial interpretations for hearing patent disputes. Meanwhile, SPC has concluded several IPR cases with a social impact and gained extensive attention. Take the example of the Jordan trademark dispute, the closure of the cases have shown that China is determined to protect IPR and fight against infringement. In the annual work report for SPC released days before, Zhou Qiang, president and chief justice of SPC, addressed that the courts will further give full play to the functions of the trial to sustain steadiness and to promote development in 2017. Zhou Qiang stressed that the courts nationwide will bring IPR judicial functions into full play to stimulate innovation and to encourage business startups.

Meanwhile, according to the 2017 annual work report released by the Supereme People's Procuratorate (SPP), the prosecutorial system nationwide actively promoted scientific innovation in 2016 and issued 15 opinions to guarantee scientific innovation. At the same time, the prosecutorial system nationwide endeavored to crack down IPR crimes and instituted public prosecutions against 21,505 suspects. In 2016, 29 provinces, regions and municipalities including Hubei province, Yunnan province and Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, have set administrative enforcement and criminal justice information sharing platforms against infringement and counterfeit.

Cao Jianming, the Procurator-General of SPP, addressed that SPP will give full play to the functions of law guarantee, particularly crack down criminal offences, such as undermining the market order, violating IPR and occupying special subsidies.

(Source: SIPO)